- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 11:57:52 +0100
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 04:57 PM 9/17/01 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote: >>My take is that it provides a way of characterizing the things that >>literals denote. >> >>So even if >> LLL rdf:type rdfs:Literal . >>is not valid syntax, I think it's reasonable to be able to say that LV >>(as in XL: qLiteral -> LV) is the same as ICEXT(I(rdfs:Literal)). > >Well, there is something very odd about having a constraint that is >perfectly clear, perfectly natural, and assumed in the semantics, but >being unable to say it in the formal language, especially when its >perfectly clear HOW to say it in the formal language. (Its a bit like not >being able to assert subclass loops, in fact :-) Well, yes. I sort-of assume the shackles will one day be removed from literals-as-subjects, but I'm just trying to make sense of that with which we are given to deal. It did occur to me that, after I wrote the comment above, the capability is arguably redundant now we have a formal model theory to work with. Our predecessors maybe had to introduce rdfs:Literal to give themselves some vocabulary to talk about what you constructed with ( XL : qLitereal -> LV )? #g ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com> <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com> ------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2001 07:19:45 UTC